Nine-dash line

File:1947 Nanhai Zhudao.png{{Further|Territorial disputes in the South China Sea#History}}

In December 1947, the Ministry of Interior of the Nationalist government released "Location Map of South Sea Islands" ({{zh|t=南海諸島位置圖|w=Nan hai chu tao wei chih tʻu}}) showing an eleven-dash line.{{cite web|author=|date=8 April 2016|title=外交部「南海議題及南海和平倡議」講習會媒體提問紀要|url=https://www.mofa.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=70bce89f4594745d&sms=700de7a3f880bae6&s=819ccac38134fb06|access-date=31 October 2021|website=Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (Taiwan)|quote=十一段線係出現於民國36年（1947年）12月1日由內政部公布之「南海諸島位置圖」|language=zh}}{{cite web|last=Brown|first=Peter J.|date=8 December 2009|title=Calculated ambiguity in the South China Sea|url=http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KL08Ae01.html|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100105111857/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/KL08Ae01.html|archive-date=January 5, 2010|access-date=May 18, 2020|work=Asia Times}} Scholarly accounts place its publication from 1946 to 1948 and indicate that it originated from an earlier one titled "Map of Chinese Islands in the South China Sea" ({{zh|s=中国南海岛屿图|w=Chung kuo nan hai tao yü tʻu}}) published by the ROC Land and Water Maps Inspection Committee in 1935. Beginning in 1952, the People's Republic of China (PRC) used a revised map with nine dashes, removing the two dashes in the Gulf of Tonkin. The change was interpreted as a concession to the newly independent North Vietnam; the maritime border between PRC and Vietnam in the Gulf of Tonkin was eventually formalized by treaty in 2000.{{cite news |last1=Beech |first1=Hannah |title=Just Where Exactly Did China Get the South China Sea Nine-Dash Line From? |url=https://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea/ |access-date=18 November 2018 |agency=Time |date=19 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181127145202/http://time.com/4412191/nine-dash-line-9-south-china-sea/ |archive-date=27 November 2018 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |title=History the Weak Link in Beijing's Maritime Claims |url=https://thediplomat.com/2013/08/history-the-weak-link-in-beijings-maritime-claims/4/ |access-date=18 November 2018 |agency=The Diplomat |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118122831/https://thediplomat.com/2013/08/history-the-weak-link-in-beijings-maritime-claims/4/ |archive-date=18 November 2018 |url-status=live }}

After retreating to Taiwan in 1949, the ROC government continued to claim the Spratly and Paracel Islands. President Lee Teng-hui claimedJadloc, M. (October 2018). Map Rights Wrong: The 1734 Murillo Velarde Map. Update Journal Volume 1-2 Number 1. that "legally, historically, geographically, or in reality", all of the South China Sea and Spratly islands were ROC territory and under ROC sovereignty, and denounced actions undertaken there by the Philippines and Malaysia.{{cite news |author= STRATFOR's Global Intelligence Update |date= 14 July 1999 |title= Taiwan sticks to its guns, to U.S. chagrin |url= http://www.atimes.com/china/AG15Ad01.html |newspaper= Asia Times |access-date= 10 March 2014 |archive-url= https://archive.today/20140325150303/http://www.atimes.com/china/AG15Ad01.html |archive-date= 25 March 2014 |url-status= dead }} Taiwan and China have the same claims and have cooperated with each other during international talks involving the Spratly Islands.{{cite news |last= Sisci |first= Francesco |date= 29 June 2010 |title= US toe-dipping muddies South China Sea |url= http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LG29Ad01.html |newspaper= Asia Times |access-date= 14 May 2014 |archive-url= http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20130710122041/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/LG29Ad01.html |archive-date= 10 July 2013 |url-status= dead }}[https://books.google.com/books?id=szcywfgKySAC&pg=PA91 Pak 2000] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160610092958/https://books.google.com/books?id=szcywfgKySAC&pg=PA91 |date=10 June 2016 }}, p. 91.

File:China's 2009 nine-dash line map submission to the UN.pdf

In May 2009, Malaysia and Vietnam submitted claims to the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf to extend their respective continental shelves. In objection, the PRC communicated two Notes Verbales to the UN Secretary General stating:

{{blockquote|text=China has indisputable sovereignty over the islands in the South China Sea and the adjacent waters, and enjoys sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the relevant waters as well as the seabed and subsoil thereof (see attached map). The above position is consistently held by the Chinese government, and is widely known by the international community.|author=Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China|title=Notes Verbales CML/17/2009 and CML/18/2009}}

Its submissions were accompanied by maps depicting nine dashes in the South China Sea. Immediately afterwards, Malaysia and Vietnam protested China's submission. Indonesia followed suit a year later, and the Philippines two years later. In 2011, the PRC submitted another {{lang|fr|note verbale}} to the UN conveying a similar message but without mentioning the line.

Although not visible on the 2009 map, modern Chinese maps since 1984, including the vertically oriented maps published in 2013 and 2014, have also included a tenth dash to the east of Taiwan. Some were nonetheless surprised when the tenth dash appeared in a 2013 map, even though it was not in the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the ROC (Taiwan) has rejected all rival claims to the Paracel islands, repeating its position that all of the Paracel, Spratly, Zhongsha (Macclesfield Bank grouped with Scarborough Shoal) and Pratas Island belong to the ROC along with "their surrounding waters and respective seabed and subsoil". Taiwan views other claims as illegitimate, releasing a statement through its Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating "there is no doubt that the Republic of China has sovereignty over the archipelagos and waters".[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/05/11/2003590086 "Taiwan reiterates Paracel Islands sovereignty claim"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151016023230/http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/05/11/2003590086 |date=16 October 2015 }}. Taipei Times. 11 May 2014, p. 3

On September 9, 2020, Wang Yi, State Councilor and Foreign Minister of China, stated that China does not claim all the waters within the nine-dash line as internal waters and territorial waters, and claimed that such accusations are unfounded, deliberately confuse different concepts, and are a distortion of China's position.{{cite news |date=2020-09-09 |title=Wang Yi Laid Out Three Basic Facts of the Issue of the South China Sea |url=http://kw.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zgxw/202009/t20200911_1572845.htm |agency=Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China}}

In 2023, re-publication of the line in a map from China's Ministry of Natural Resources drew protests from the Philippines, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Japan.{{cite news|url=https://japan-forward.com/chinas-new-ten-dash-line-map-infuriates-asian-neighbors/|title=China's New 'Ten-Dash Line' Map Infuriates Asian Neighbors"newspaper=Japan Forward|date=September 5, 2023}}{{Cite web |last=Sakamoto |first=Shigeki |title=What are China’s Aims with the Ten-Dash Line in the South China Sea? |url=https://www.cas.go.jp/jp/ryodo_eg/kenkyu/senkaku/chapter04_column_04.html |access-date=2025-01-28 |website=www.cas.go.jp}}

The nine-dash line has been used by the PRC inconsistently and with ambiguity.{{cite journal |last1=Florian |first1=Dupuy |last2=Pierre |first2=Marie |date=January 2013 |title=A Legal Analysis of China's Historic Rights Claim in the South China Sea |journal=American Journal of International Law |page=124}}{{cite web |author=Foreign Press Center of Vietnam |date=25 July 2010 |title=The "9-dashed line" – an irrational claim |url=http://www.presscenter.org.vn/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=5290&Itemid=30 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721024755/http://www.presscenter.org.vn/en/?option=com_content&task=view&id=5290&Itemid=30 |archive-date=21 July 2011 |access-date=20 June 2011}} It is not clear whether the map constitutes a part of China's historical claims or serves only illustrative purposes. The PRC has not clarified the line's legal nature in terms of how the dashes would be joined and which of the maritime features inside are specifically being claimed.{{cite news |last1=Tsirbas |first1=Marina |date=2 June 2016 |title=What Does the Nine-Dash Line Actually Mean? |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/what-does-the-nine-dash-line-actually-mean/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181118205742/https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/what-does-the-nine-dash-line-actually-mean/ |archive-date=18 November 2018 |access-date=18 November 2018 |agency=The Diplomat}} Analysts from the U.S. Department of State posit three different explanations—that it indicates only the islands within are being claimed, that a maritime area including other features are being claimed, or that a claim is being made as historical waters of China. A claim to only the islands and associated rights is most consistent with past PRC publications and statements, whereas the other two arguments would put China's claim at greater conflict with the UNCLOS. China's actual claim likely does not include all or most of the waters in the region and appears to center around island features and whatever entitlements that are associated with them, including non-exclusive fishing rights.{{Cite web |title=80 Percent of Zero: China’s Phantom South China Sea Claims |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/02/80-percent-of-zero-chinas-phantom-south-china-sea-claims/ |access-date=2024-06-20 |website=thediplomat.com |language=en-US}}{{cite web |author=Sourabh Gupta, Samuels International |date=11 January 2015 |title=Why US analysis of China's nine-dash line is flawed |url=http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/01/11/why-us-analysis-of-chinas-nine-dash-line-is-flawed/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150629193225/http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/01/11/why-us-analysis-of-chinas-nine-dash-line-is-flawed/ |archive-date=29 June 2015 |access-date=30 June 2015}}

File:South China Sea Claims and Boundary Agreements 2012.jpg

According to former Philippine President Benigno Aquino III, "China's nine-dash line territorial claim over the entire South China Sea is against international laws, particularly the United Nations Convention of the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS)".{{cite web| title = Aquino mulls UN protest on Spratlys| first = Regina| last = Bengco| url = http://maritimesecurity.asia/south-china-sea-2/aquino-mulls-un-protest-on-spratlys/| publisher = Maritime Security Asia| date = 2 June 2011| access-date = 12 June 2011| archive-url = https://archive.today/20130114203524/http://maritimesecurity.asia/south-china-sea-2/aquino-mulls-un-protest-on-spratlys/| archive-date = 14 January 2013| url-status = dead}}

Vietnam also rejects the Chinese claim, citing that it is baseless and contrary to UNCLOS.{{cite web|title=Is the Ox's tongue line legal?|author=Hoang Viet|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/forum/2009/05/090515_china_sea_dispute.shtml|publisher=BBC|date=19 May 2009|access-date=12 June 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101127230511/http://www.bbc.co.uk/vietnamese/forum/2009/05/090515_china_sea_dispute.shtml|archive-date=27 November 2010|url-status=live}} The line is often referred to in Vietnam as {{Lang|vi|Đường lưỡi bò}} ({{Literal translation|cow's tongue line}}).{{cite news |url=https://vietnamnet.vn/en/be-careful-with-imported-products-featuring-chinas-illegal-nine-dash-line-587366.html |title=Be careful with imported products featuring China's illegal nine-dash line |work=VietnamNet Global |author=Nguyen Duy Xuan |date=12 November 2019 |access-date=7 July 2023}}

Parts of China's nine-dash line overlap Indonesia's exclusive economic zone near the Natuna islands. Indonesia believes China's claim over parts of the Natuna islands has no legal basis. In November 2015, Indonesia's security chief Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan said Indonesia could take China before an international court if Beijing's claim to the majority of the South China Sea and part of Indonesian territory is not resolved through dialogue.{{cite news | date = 11 November 2015 | title = Indonesia says could also take China to court over South China Sea | work = Reuters | url = https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-indonesia-idUSKCN0T00VC20151111#eGL6G8XkzH3bbmXw.97 | access-date = 1 July 2017 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170617134606/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-china-indonesia-idUSKCN0T00VC20151111#eGL6G8XkzH3bbmXw.97 | archive-date = 17 June 2017 | url-status = live }}

Researcher Sourabh Gupta questioned the applicability of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to the dispute, arguing that the convention does not support claims based on sovereignty or title, and instead supports the right to continue using the waters for traditional purpose such as fishing.{{cite web |author=Sourabh Gupta |date=15 December 2014 |title=Testing China's – and the State Department's – nine-dash line claims |url=http://csis.org/files/publication/141215_Pac1488.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304203510/http://csis.org/files/publication/141215_Pac1488.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2016 |access-date=30 June 2015}}

File:James Shoal Dash location in 2009 & 1984 maps.jpg

A 2012 Chinese eighth-grade geography textbook includes a map of China with the nine-dash line and the text "The southernmost point of our country's territory is Zengmu Ansha (James Shoal) in the Nansha Islands." Shan Zhiqiang, the executive chief editor of the Chinese National Geography magazine, wrote in 2013: "The nine-dashed line ... is now deeply engraved in the hearts and minds of the Chinese people."{{cite news |url=https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-nine-dashed-line-engraved-in-our-hearts/ |title=The Nine-Dashed Line: 'Engraved in Our Hearts' |author=Zheng Wang |newspaper=The Diplomat |access-date=16 May 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160520160616/https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-nine-dashed-line-engraved-in-our-hearts/ |archive-date=20 May 2016 |url-status=live }}

According to a leaked diplomatic cable from September 2008, the United States Embassy in Beijing reported that a senior Chinese government maritime law expert said he was unaware of the historical basis for the nine dashes.{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-sea-boundary-idUSBRE84O07520120525|title=Analysis: China's nine-dashed line in [the] South China Sea|work=Reuters|date=25 May 2012|access-date=3 February 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140226205848/http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/25/us-china-sea-boundary-idUSBRE84O07520120525|archive-date=26 February 2014|url-status=live}}

At the Conference on Maritime Study organized by the US-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in June 2011, Su Hao of the China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing delivered a speech on China's sovereignty and policy in the South China Sea, using history as the main argument. However, Termsak Chalermpalanupap, assistant director for Program Coordination and External Relations of the ASEAN Secretariat, said: "I don't think that the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) recognizes history as the basis to make sovereignty claims". Peter Dutton of the US Naval War College agreed, saying, "The jurisdiction over waters does not have connection to history. It must observe the UNCLOS." Dutton stressed that using history to explain sovereignty erodes the rules of the UNCLOS.{{cite web| title = International scholars discuss maritime security in the East Sea |url= http://m.english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/government/9405/international-scholars-discuss-maritime-security-in-the-east-sea.html |date = 22 June 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141013140925/http://m.english.vietnamnet.vn/fms/government/9405/international-scholars-discuss-maritime-security-in-the-east-sea.html |archive-date=13 October 2014 |publisher=vietnamne |url-status=live}} It is understood that China ratified the UNCLOS in 1996.{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#China%20Upon%20ratification |title=Declarations or Statements upon UNCLOS Ratification |publisher=Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United Nations Office of Legal Affairs |access-date=22 February 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130206162003/http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_declarations.htm#China%20Upon%20ratification |archive-date=6 February 2013 |url-status=live }}

Maritime researcher Carlyle Thayer, emeritus Professor of Politics of the University of New South Wales, said that Chinese scholars using historical heritage to explain its claim of sovereignty shows the lack of legal foundation for the claim under international law.{{cite web | url=http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/14/south-china-sea-disputes-asean-and-china/ | title=South China Sea disputes: ASEAN and China | date=14 July 2011 | access-date=22 February 2013 | last=Thayer | first=Carlyle A. | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130423160617/http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2011/07/14/south-china-sea-disputes-asean-and-china/ | archive-date=23 April 2013 | url-status=live }} Caitlyn Antrim, executive director, Rule of Law Committee for the Oceans of the US, commented that "The U-shaped line has no ground under the international law because [the] historical basis is very weak". She added "I don't understand what China claims for in that U-shaped line. If they claim sovereignty over islands inside that line, the question is whether they are able to prove their sovereignty over these islands. If China claimed sovereignty over these islands 500 years ago and then they did not perform their sovereignty, their claim of sovereignty becomes very weak. For uninhabited islands, they can only claim territorial seas, not exclusive economic zones (EEZ) from the islands". Wu Shicun, president of China's National Institute for South China Sea Studies, claimed that today's international law "cannot overwrite existing facts of the past".{{cite web |date=22 August 2014 |title=China's nine-dash line came ahead of Unclos, says expert |url=https://globalnation.inquirer.net/109773/chinas-nine-dash-line-came-ahead-of-unclos-says-expert}}

In 2020, Voice of America reported that China has been putting out "constant reminders" of the nine-dash line in scholarly journals, maps, T-shirts, and films over the past decade.{{cite news |last1=Jennings |first1=Ralph |date=27 July 2020 |title=China Launches Propaganda for Recognition of Disputed Maritime Claims |language=en-US |work=Voice of America |publisher=U.S. Agency for Global Media |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/east-asia-pacific_china-launches-propaganda-recognition-disputed-maritime-claims/6193497.html |access-date=15 July 2023}} Jay Batongbacal, a professor at the University of the Philippines, called them "subtle propaganda". Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the target audience is third-world countries. A researcher at the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam expressed her own observations that the publication of the nine-dash line in scientific journals has increased since 2010, namely in articles from China. According to some scholars, the inclusion of the U-shaped line in maps is required by Chinese law.{{Cite journal |last=Cyranoski |first=David |date=2011-10-01 |title=Angry words over East Asian seas |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/478293a |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=478 |issue=7369 |pages=293–294 |doi=10.1038/478293a |pmid=22012361 |bibcode=2011Natur.478..293C |s2cid=9901398 |issn=1476-4687}} Nature has stated that it remains neutral regarding any jurisdictional claims published in the journal.{{Cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Zikun |last2=Liu |first2=Benpei |last3=Wang |first3=Yongdong |last4=Huang |first4=Min |last5=Kapitany |first5=Tom |last6=Tian |first6=Ning |last7=Cao |first7=Yong |last8=Lu |first8=Yuanzheng |last9=Deng |first9=Shenghui |date=2019-03-19 |title=Tree ring phototropism and implications for the rotation of the North China Block |journal=Scientific Reports |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=4856 |doi=10.1038/s41598-019-41339-2 |pmid=30890749 |pmc=6425038 |bibcode=2019NatSR...9.4856J |issn=2045-2322}} It has asked authors to depoliticize their work and mark controversial designations, and its editors reserve the right to label disputed claims.{{Cite journal |date=2011-10-19 |title=Uncharted territory |journal=Nature |volume=478 |issue=7369 |pages=285 |doi=10.1038/478285a |pmid=22012346 |bibcode=2011Natur.478Q.285. |s2cid=203013009 |issn=1476-4687|doi-access=free }} Elsevier indicated that the legality of the nine-dash line is disputed.{{Cite journal |date=2014-10-15 |title=Publisher's note |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X14006298 |journal=Marine Pollution Bulletin |volume=87 |issue=1 |pages=1 |doi=10.1016/j.marpolbul.2014.09.023 |bibcode=2014MarPB..87....1. |issn=0025-326X}}

{{Main|South China Sea Arbitration}}

In January 2013, the Philippines initiated arbitration proceedings against China under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over a range of issues, including the latter's historic rights claims inside the nine-dash line.{{cite web |url=https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf |title=Press Release: The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of the Philippines v. The People's Republic of China) |date=12 July 2016 |publisher=PCA |access-date=13 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160712201412/https://pca-cpa.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/175/2016/07/PH-CN-20160712-Press-Release-No-11-English.pdf |archive-date=12 July 2016 |url-status=dead }}{{cite news |url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aa32a224-480e-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab.html |title=Timeline: South China Sea dispute |date=12 July 2016 |work=Financial Times |access-date=13 July 2016 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20161214224551/https://www.ft.com/content/aa32a224-480e-11e6-8d68-72e9211e86ab |archive-date=14 December 2016 |url-status=live }}{{cite news |url=https://time.com/4400671/philippines-south-china-sea-arbitration-case/?xid=homepage |magazine=TIME |title=China's Global Reputation Hinges on Upcoming South China Sea Court Decision |first=Hannah |last=Beech |date=11 July 2016 |access-date=13 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160713195604/http://time.com/4400671/philippines-south-china-sea-arbitration-case/?xid=homepage |archive-date=13 July 2016 |url-status=live }} A tribunal of arbitrators constituted under Annex VII of UNCLOS appointed the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) as the registry to the proceedings.

The Philippines' initiation of the arbitration was followed by extensive internal debates among Chinese policymakers about whether China should participate in the arbitration.{{Cite book |last=Wang |first=Frances Yaping |title=The Art of State Persuasion: China's Strategic Use of Media in Interstate Disputes |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2024 |isbn=9780197757512}}{{Rp|pages=126-127}} Participating and losing could impact domestic sentiment and might have regional implications for China's other maritime territorial claims.{{Rp|page=127}} The nine-dash line predated UNCLOS, and its lack of defined coordinates was a weakness under current international law.{{Rp|page=127}} Chinese policymakers had previously sought to preserve the ambiguity of its status in an effort to preserve the status quo and manage its claims and relations with neighbors.{{Rp|page=127}} Policymakers were also reticent because of concerns that the proceedings would not be fair, citing the fact that the president of ITLOS, Shunji Yanai, was Japanese.{{Rp|page=127}} Some policymakers also were concerned about the procedure given that China had no precedent for using arbitration to resolve territorial disagreements.{{Rp|page=127}} Others favored participation in order to be able to shape the proceedings, including because only by participating would China have the ability to appoint an arbitrator to the panel.{{Rp|page=127}}

On 12 July 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines on most of its submissions. While it would not "rule on any question of sovereignty over land territory and would not delimit any maritime boundary between the Parties", it concluded that China had not exercised exclusive control over the waters within the nine-dash line historically and has "no legal basis" to claim "historic rights" to the resources there. It also concluded that China's historic rights claims over the maritime areas (as opposed to land masses and territorial waters) inside the nine-dash line would have no lawful effect beyond what it is entitled to under the UNCLOS.{{cite web |url = http://www.pcacases.com/pcadocs/PH-CN%20-%2020160712%20-%20Award.pdf |title=PCA Case Nº 2013-19 |publisher=Permanent Court of Arbitration |date=12 July 2016 }}{{refn|PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(264, 266, 267), p. 113.}}{{refn|PCA Award, Section V(F)(d)(278), p. 117.}} China rejected the ruling, calling it "ill-founded"; its paramount leader Xi Jinping said that "China's territorial sovereignty and marine rights in the South China Sea will not be affected by the so-called Philippines South China Sea ruling in any way", but China was still "committed to resolving disputes" with its neighbors.{{cite news |url= https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china |title= Beijing rejects tribunal's ruling in South China Sea case |first1= Tom |last1=Phillips |first2=Oliver |last2=Holmes |first3=Owen |last3=Bowcott |date= 12 July 2016 |work= The Guardian |access-date= 13 July 2016 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160712220441/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/12/philippines-wins-south-china-sea-case-against-china |archive-date= 12 July 2016 |url-status= live }} China's grounds for rejecting the ruling include its decision to exclude itself from the compulsory arbitration provisions of UNCLOS when it ratified UNCLOS in 2006.{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |title=The dragon roars back : transformational leaders and dynamics of Chinese foreign policy |date=2023 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-5036-3088-8 |location=Stanford, California |pages=108 |oclc=1331741429}}

Immediately following the ruling, China released a number of documents reaffirming their claims in four specific areas: sovereignty over all the islands in the South China Sea; internal waters, territorial seas and contiguous zones of those islands; EEZs and continental shelfs of these islands; and historical rights. These documents did not mention the nine-dash line in relation to the claims. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute commented, "The quiet disappearance of the ‘nine-dash line’ from China's official claims is a major policy change [...] implying that China doesn't take it as a territorial demarcation line—that is, China doesn't claim 90% of the South China Sea as ‘a Chinese lake’, as is so often alleged in international media."{{Cite web |last=Zhang |first=Feng |date=2016-07-14 |title=Breathtaking but counterproductive: the South China Sea arbitration award |url=https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/breathtaking-counterproductive-south-china-sea-arbitration-award/ |access-date=2024-05-22 |website=The Strategist |language=en-AU}}

Taiwan, which currently administers Taiping Island, the largest of the Spratly Islands, also rejected the ruling and deployed a coast guard vessel to the island/rock, with a naval frigate mission also scheduled.{{cite news | url = http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-rejects-south-china-sea-ruling-says-will-deploy-another-navy-vessel-to-itu-aba | work = The Straits Times | date = 12 July 2016 | first = Jermyn | last = Chow | title = Taiwan rejects South China Sea ruling, says will deploy another navy vessel to Taiping | access-date = 13 July 2016 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20180617015244/https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/taiwan-rejects-south-china-sea-ruling-says-will-deploy-another-navy-vessel-to-itu-aba | archive-date = 17 June 2018 | url-status = live }}{{cite news |last1=Tiezzi |first1=Shannon |title=Taiwan: South China Sea Ruling 'Completely Unacceptable' |url=https://thediplomat.com/2016/07/taiwan-south-china-sea-ruling-completely-unacceptable/ |work=The Diplomat |date=13 July 2016}}

Academic Graham Allison observed in 2016, "None of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council have ever accepted any international court's ruling when (in their view) it infringed their sovereignty or national security interests. Thus, when China rejects the Court's decision in this case, it will be doing just what the other great powers have repeatedly done for decades."{{Cite book |last=Zhao |first=Suisheng |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1331741429 |title=The dragon roars back: transformational leaders and dynamics of Chinese foreign policy |date=2023 |publisher=Stanford University Press |isbn=978-1-5036-3088-8 |location=Stanford, California |pages=109–110 |oclc=1331741429}}

The DreamWorks Animation-Pearl Studio animated film Abominable included a scene with the nine-dash line, which generated controversy in the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia although the film was simply depicting maps as sold in China. The Philippines and Vietnam banned the film, and Malaysia followed suit after the producers refused to cut the scene.{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/18/abominable-anger-grows-over-controversial-map-in-chinese-childrens-film|title=Abominable: anger grows over controversial map in Chinese children's film|agency=Reuters|date=2019-10-18|work=The Guardian|access-date=2019-10-18|language=en-GB|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191018142547/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/18/abominable-anger-grows-over-controversial-map-in-chinese-childrens-film|archive-date=18 October 2019|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|date=2019-10-18|title=MTRCB bans 'Abominable' over China map–report|url=https://entertainment.inquirer.net/348657/mtrcb-bans-abominable-over-china-map|access-date=2021-04-04|via=INQUIRER.net|agency=Agence France-Presse|language=en}}{{Cite news|last1=Ananthalakshmi |first1=A. |editor1-last=Gopalakrishnan |editor1-first=Raju |date=2019-10-20|title='Abominable' film axed in Malaysia after rebuffing order to cut China map|language=en|work=Reuters|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-malaysia-southchinasea-film-idUSKBN1WZ033|access-date=2021-04-04}}{{cite news|url=https://tribune.net.ph/index.php/2019/10/16/locsin-on-movie-abominable-cut-nine-dash-line-scene/|title=SPOTLIGHTLocsin: Cut nine-dash line scene on 'Abominable'|date=October 16, 2019|newspaper=The Daily Tribune}}

In 2019, an ESPN broadcast used a map that appeared to endorse China's claims to Taiwan and the nine-dash line, causing controversy.{{cite web | last=Crossley | first=Gabriel | title=ESPN criticised over China-NBA coverage for using 'nine-dash line' map | website=Reuters | date=2019-10-10 | url=https://www.reuters.com/article/china-basketball-nba-espn-idUSL3N26U2HE | access-date=2019-10-27 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191019073712/https://www.reuters.com/article/china-basketball-nba-espn-idUSL3N26U2HE | archive-date=19 October 2019 | url-status=live }}

In 2021, Netflix pulled TV series Pine Gap from its Vietnamese service, following an order from the country's Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information, as a map with the nine-dash line was briefly shown in two episodes of the series. TV series Put Your Head on My Shoulder was also pulled from Vietnam, after the nine-dash line appeared briefly on the ninth episode of the series. The country's Authority of Broadcasting and Electronic Information released a statement that Netflix had angered and hurt the feelings of the entire people of Vietnam.{{cite web|url=https://sea.mashable.com/culture/16494/netflix-removes-show-in-vietnam-that-showed-chinas-nine-dash-line-in-maps|title=Netflix pulls show from Vietnam that featured China's 'nine-dash line' in maps|author=Danial Martinus|newspaper=Mashable Southeast Asia|date=2021-07-05|access-date= September 23, 2021}}{{cite web|url=https://gizmodo.com/netflix-pulls-nsa-themed-show-in-vietnam-over-offensive-1847217854|title=Netflix Pulls NSA-Themed Show in Vietnam Over Offensive Maps|author=Matt Nowak|newspaper=Gizmodo|date=2021-07-02|access-date= September 23, 2021}}

On 12 March 2022, Vietnam Film Authority banned the movie Uncharted because it contained an image of a nine-dash line map.{{cite web|url=https://thanhnien.vn/tho-san-co-vat-bi-cam-chieu-tai-viet-nam-vi-co-ban-do-duong-luoi-bo-post1437941.html|title='Thợ săn cổ vật' bị cấm chiếu tại Việt Nam vì có bản đồ đường lưỡi bò|author=|newspaper=Thanh Niên|date=2022-03-12|access-date= March 12, 2021}} By April 27, the Philippines followed suit.{{cite web|url=https://globalnation.inquirer.net/203793/uncharted-pulled-out-from-ph-cinemas-over-nine-dash-line-scene|title='Uncharted' pulled out from PH cinemas over nine-dash line scene|author=Christia Marie Ramos|newspaper=INQUIRER.net|date=2022-04-27|access-date= April 27, 2022}}

On 5 July 2023, Vietnam's Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism has announced that it had ordered an inspection of the official website of IME, a talent management and event organising company based in Beijing, China, for allegedly featuring the nine-dash line in the map of East and Southeast Asia. On the following day, 6 July, Brian Chow, the CEO of IME, stated that it was an "unfortunate misunderstanding", but added that the company was committed to replace the images in question. At the time of the controversy, IME has scheduled two concerts of Blackpink (a South Korean girl band managed by YG Entertainment) in Hanoi, Vietnam, as a part of the Born Pink World Tour, and some Vietnamese netizens called for a boycott of the concerts or any event organised by IME.{{cite news |last1=Nguyen |first1=Phuong |last2=Vu |first2=Khanh |last3=Guarascio |first3=Francesco |last4=Yim |first4=Hyunsu |editor1-last=Kapoor |editor1-first=Kanupriya |editor2-last=Lawson |editor2-first=Hugh |title=Vietnam probes Blackpink concert organiser over South China Sea map |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/vietnam-probes-blackpink-concert-organiser-over-south-china-sea-map-2023-07-06/ |access-date=10 July 2023 |work=Reuters |date=7 July 2023 |language=en}}{{cite news |title=Blackpink Vietnam concert organiser apologises over S. China Sea map |url=https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230706-vietnam-looking-into-blackpink-concert-organiser-over-s-china-sea-map |access-date=10 July 2023 |agency=Agence France-Presse |date=6 July 2023 |language=en |via=France 24}}

On 10 July 2023, Vietnam's Department of Cinema has ordered Netflix and FPT Telecom to remove Chinese drama series {{Interlanguage link|Flight to You|zh|向风而行|italic=yes}} from their platforms within 24 hours; the department found the appearances of the nine-dash line in nine episodes. FPT Telecom already blurred the maps in question for its service, but was ordered to take down the entire series nonetheless.{{cite news |last1=Frater |first1=Patrick |title=Netflix Removes Chinese Series 'Flight to You' After Vietnam Objects to Controversial Map |url=https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/netflix-flight-to-you-removed-vietnam-controversial-map-1235665083/ |access-date=12 July 2023 |work=Variety |date=10 July 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Sharma |first1=Shweta |title=After Barbie, Vietnam now orders Netflix to remove Chinese drama over map |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/southeast-asia/barbie-vietnam-ban-netflix-flight-to-you-b2373134.html |access-date=12 July 2023 |work=The Independent |date=11 July 2023 |language=en-UK}}

On 3 July 2023, Vietnam banned the live-action Barbie film, alleging that scenes in the film display the nine-dash line map over the South China Sea.{{cite news |date=3 July 2023 |title=Vietnam bans 'Barbie' movie over South China Sea map |website=Reuters |url=https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/vietnam-bans-barbie-movie-over-south-china-sea-map-2023-07-03/ |access-date=3 July 2023}} The Tiền Phong newspaper reported that the nine-dash line appears multiple times in the film.{{cite news |date=3 July 2023 |title=Bye bye 'Barbie': Vietnam bans new movie over South China Sea map |language=en |agency=Agence France-Presse |url=https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20230703-bye-bye-barbie-vietnam-bans-new-movie-over-south-china-sea-map |access-date=7 July 2023 |via=France 24}}{{cite news |date=3 July 2023 |title=Việt Nam cấm chiếu phim 'Barbie' vì có đường lưỡi bò |language=vi |work=Tiền Phong |url=https://tienphong.vn/viet-nam-cam-chieu-phim-barbie-vi-co-duong-luoi-bo-post1548187.tpo |access-date=7 July 2023}} Regarding one scene that features a child-like drawing of a world map with dashed lines, the film's distributor, Warner Bros., defended these claims by stating that the map is a children's drawing and has no intended meaning.{{Cite web |last=Donnelly |first=Matt |date=2023-07-06 |title='Barbie' Map Controversy: Warner Bros. Explains the Drawing That Got the Film Banned in Vietnam |url=https://variety.com/2023/film/news/barbie-map-meaning-why-banned-1235662437/ |access-date=2023-07-07 |website=Variety |language=en-US}}{{cite news |last1=Broadway |first1=Danielle |last2=Richwine |first2=Lisa |date=7 July 2023 |title=Warner Bros defends 'Barbie' film's world map as 'child-like' |language=en |work=Reuters |editor1-last=Milliken |editor1-first=Mary |url=https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/warner-bros-defends-barbie-films-world-map-child-like-2023-07-06/ |access-date=7 July 2023 |editor2-last=Lewis |editor2-first=Matthew}} On 11 July, the Philippines' Movie and Television Review and Classification Board allowed the film to be screened in the country, but requested Warner Bros. to "blur the controversial lines in order to avoid further misinterpretations". It said the line, which was part of Barbie's journey from her fictional universe to the "real world", was not U-shaped and did not have nine dashes.{{Cite news |last=Villaruel |first=Jauhn Etienne |date=July 11, 2023 |title=MTRCB allows 'Barbie' screening in PH amid 9-dash line controversy |work=ABS-CBN News |url=https://news.abs-cbn.com/entertainment/07/11/23/mtrcb-allows-barbie-screening-in-ph-amid-controversy |access-date=July 11, 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Abarca |first1=Charie Mae |date=11 July 2023 |title=MTRCB allows screening of controversial 'Barbie' film in PH cinemas |language=en-PH |newspaper=Philippine Daily Inquirer |url=https://entertainment.inquirer.net/508748/mtrcb-allows-commercial-screening-of-controversial-barbie-film-in-ph-cinemas |access-date=12 July 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Cayabyab |first1=Marc Jayson |date=July 12, 2023 |title=MTRCB allows 'Barbie' screening |work=The Philippine Star |url=https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2023/07/12/2280488/mtrcb-allows-barbie-screening |access-date=12 July 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Garner |first1=Jom |date=11 July 2023 |title=MTRCB greenlights showing of 'Barbie' in Phl |work=Daily Tribune |url=https://tribune.net.ph/2023/07/11/mtrcb-rejects-calls-to-prohibit-the-distribution-and-showing-of-the-barbie-movie/ |access-date=12 July 2023}}{{cite news |last1=Bacelonia |first1=Wilnard |date=July 11, 2023 |title=MTRCB to solon: No basis to ban 'Barbie' movie |work=Philippine News Agency |url=https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1205413 |access-date=12 July 2023}} Other dashed lines can be seen near the United States, Greenland, Brazil and Africa.{{Cite web |title=Philippines greenlights Barbie film screening, to blur dashes in South China Sea map |url=https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2023/07/12/philippines-greenlights-barbie-film-screening-to-blur-dashes-in-south-china-sea-map |access-date=2023-09-21 |website=The Star |language=en}}

Speaking to Voice of America on Vietnam's ban of the 2023 Barbie film, Trịnh Hữu Long (founder of the research group Legal Initiatives for Vietnam) said "The Vietnamese government is surely using legitimate nationalist reasoning to strengthen its entire censorship system," while Michael Caster at the free expression group Article 19 said "Maps are political, and borders often bear historical wounds, but rather than ensuring free and open discussion, the knee jerk response to censor seldom supports historical or transitional justice".{{cite news |last1=Scott |first1=Liam |title=No Barbie Girl in Vietnam's World |url=https://www.voanews.com/a/no-barbie-girl-in-vietnam-s-world-/7171971.html |access-date=14 July 2023 |work=Voice of America |publisher=U.S. Agency for Global Media |date=8 July 2023 |language=en-US}} Speaking to Vox, UC Berkeley professor Peter Zinoman said, "To the Chinese, the nine-dash line signifies their legitimate claims to the South China Sea," and "To the Vietnamese, it symbolizes a brazen act of imperialist bullying that elevates Chinese national interest over an older shared set of interests of socialist brotherhood."{{cite news |last1=Brinkhof |first1=Tim |title=How Hollywood appeases China, explained by the Barbie movie |url=https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/7/13/23791805/barbie-map-nine-dash-line-vietnam-china |access-date=20 July 2023 |work=Vox |publisher=Vox Media |date=13 July 2023 |language=en |archive-date=July 20, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230720064228/https://www.vox.com/culture/2023/7/13/23791805/barbie-map-nine-dash-line-vietnam-china |url-status=live }}

• Baselines of the Chinese territorial sea
• Foreign policy of China
• List of irredentist claims or disputes
• Territorial disputes in the South China Sea

{{Notelist}}

{{Reflist|refs=

}}

{{Commons category|China's nine-dash demarcation line}}

{{Library resources box}}

• {{cite web|url=https://www.imoa.ph/imoawebexhibit/The%20Historical%20Facts%20in%20the%20WPSLOW.pdf|title=Historical Facts, Historical Lies, and Historical Rights in the West Philippine Sea|author=Antonio T. Carpio|authorlink=Antonio Carpio|accessdate=December 6, 2022|website=IMOA.ph}} - the published presentation notes, including supportive illustrations and footnotes for a presentation at the Philippine Institute for Marine and Ocean Affairs of the López Museum and Library ([https://www.imoa.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Press-Release-Feb-21_AJusticeATCarpio.pdf event release])

{{South China Sea}}

{{Spratly Islands topics}}

{{Irredentism}}

{{Foreign relations of China}}

{{Foreign relations of Taiwan}}

{{Portalbar|Geography|Politics}}

Category:Territorial disputes of the Philippines

Category:Territorial disputes of China

Category:Territorial disputes of Malaysia

Category:Territorial disputes of Vietnam

Category:Territorial disputes of the Republic of China

Category:South China Sea

Category:Disputed territories in Southeast Asia

Category:Neocolonialism

Category:Chinese irredentism

Category:Territorial disputes of Brunei

Category:Incidents in the South China Sea